Monarchy or democracy

[claymore]

Will Britain ever become a republic with a democratically elected head of state,and if it did would that include Scotland and Wales?

[Theland]

I don't believe so. Given the well earned disrespect for some members of the Royal Family, the respect for royalty as an institution remains, in my opinion, very solid indeed.
Culturally, they are a bulwark against the alien influences that are swamping the country, a small price to pay for their priveleges.
Publicly and privately, I respect the Queen. Charles? Publicly, I would stand and call him "Sir," but privately I would tell him to get real and get his pitiful act together.

[Theland]

Sorry - I never answered the Scotland / Wales aspect of your question.
In my opinion, as above, but with the added comment that I believe it would be a terrible shame if Wales and Scotland abandoned the monarchy as head of state, even if politically the distanced themselves from their English and Irish cousins.

[4GS]

I live in hope that one day this country (the U.K) will become a republic but, alas I don't think this will happen in either my or my childrens lifetime.

[brionon]

Have you noticed-those that want to bend the knee to a Moarch are,nearly always,Religious.

[ruby27]

Sadly no.
Whilst England did have a republic, it was very short-lived and those with the power and control, soon ensured that we were back to the inequitable system of plutocracy and in some instances, primogeniture.
Those who wield the power are not going to allow a meritocracy to prosper. If the monarchy was dismantled, the populace might, just might question the rest of the system. If, of course we could be dragged away from the television!

[Theland]

Ruby ruby ruby rubeeeeey (loud like the song), please look at the republics, like, well, you name them, would we really be better off?

[chakka35]

We do not need a democratically-elected Head of State provided we have a democratically-elected government to pass the laws which govern us.

The Queen does not govern us, and we "bend the knee", bow or courtsey to her only literally and if we meet her (that is if we have more manners than Cherie Blair).

The Queen's job is to stand head and shoulders above the sordid world of politics, to represent to the outside world everyone in the country regardless of race, creed, colour, sex, political views, tastes or social status. No mere politician could possibly do that.

(PS: As many on this site know too well, I am not religious!)

[brionon]

Chakka-The Armed forces and the Police swear allegience to the queen. she is head of State. She is tha head of the ESTABLISHED religion. She represents a Society based on Class and Religion.

[Whoever]

When I look at our democatically elected government and see what kind of people we are voting into public office I can only say "Thank God for the Queen" and our monarchy.

I just hope her successors aspire to the same high standards for I fear that expecting those standards from our politicians is a long lost dream.

I still firmly believe in the Union of Great Britain (including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), even if they do have a certain amount of autonomy for some regional issues.

[shakerlad]

When you look at the succession of complete muppets, and the huge expense of campaigning ( for both the successful and the also rans), who have become president of the USA in recent times, I have to say I really don't want part of that. The present shambolic array of politicians is bad enough without anyone vying for what they would perceive to be ultimate power.
There is something strangely gratifying in having a head of state who has seen, er what, around 20 PM's come and go, and can no doubt spot a duff quite quickly.

As for Betty's Head of Church role, it's only a titular thing, has no influence of day to day life of Church.

[fletcher.5]

i`m afraid no is the answer to your question. When the current monarch passes away the rest of them should be put against the wall & shot.
O Happy Days the f----- blood sucking parasites

[brionon]

Shakerland-As for Betty's Head of Church role, it's only a titular thing, has no influence of day to day life of Church.

And the Bishops in the House of Lords ? Do they have no say ?

[SJmacleod]

One of the most frightening titles I can think of is 'President Brown'.

The Queen does not rule us, Parliament does that, she reigns. She has no actual political power, and I like it that way. I'd far rather have a head of state who has to be outside the political arena than be lumbered with someone such as George W. Bush who has the power to push his own agenda and refuses to learn from the mistakes of the Vietnam War.

And when we consider some of the other republics which exist in this world of ours, I'm glad we have a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a republic.

And no, I'm not religious. I just don't see the point in scrapping things for the sake of scrapping them and replacing them with something that is prone to corruption. And the Monarchy actually supports itself from its income from Crown lands so why go to the expense of having a presidency?

And by the way, try to see the POW in a more positive light. A lot of young people would be out of work without the Prince's Trust.

[jno]

"Culturally, they are a bulwark against the alien influences that are swamping the country"

Theland, that would be the Hanoverian queen and her Greek husband, then?

[gouldc]

I personally can't wait for independance from this ''United Kingdom''. Just a shame that the english government have refused to allow Northern Ireland to join it's siter country for so long.

When there's a war of independence north of the border, I for one will be there, gun in my hand (on the northern side of course with my Scots cousins)